Supervisory styles

Overview and research

From an extensive review of the literature on supervision, Gatfield (2005) proposes a model which describes four main supervisory styles. More information is also available about traits that appear to encompass the 'ideal' supervisor. The styles proposed by Gatfield are based on a model utilising 'support' and 'structure'. The vertical axis represents 'support' and the horizontal axis represents 'structure' (p. 319).

High Support	Pastoral Style Low structure and high support Candidate has personal low management skill but takes advantage of all the support facilities that are on offer Supervisor provides considerable personal care and support but not necessarily in a task-driven, directive capacity	Contractual Style High structure and high support Candidate highly motivated and able to take direction and to act on own initiative Supervisor able to administer direction and exercises good management skills and interpersonal relationships
Low Support	Laissez-faire Style Low structure low support Candidate has limited levels of motivation and management skills Supervisor in non-directive and not committed to high levels of personal interaction Supervisor may appear uncaring and uninvolved	Directorial Style High structure and low support Candidate highly motivated and sees the necessity to take advantage of engaging in high structural activities such as setting objectives, completing and submitting work on time on own initiative without taking advantage of institutional support Supervisor has a close and regular interactive relationship with the candidate, but avoids non-task issues
	Low Structure	High Structure

Following the development of his model, Gatfield interviewed 12 supervisors who had been designated excellent by the Dean of the Faculty (in this case Business). The 12 supervisors were asked to place themselves within one of the above quadrants. Nine placed themselves in the Contractual Style quadrant, and one in each of the other three quadrants.

The criteria that the Dean used to identify excellent supervisors were:

• Achieving high completion rates
• Students who submit within the normally expected time frame
• Engagement in multiple supervisions
• Receiving excellent supervisory reports (p. 319)

Perhaps more telling was the suggestion from the interview data that these excellent supervisors made a transition from one style to the other during candidature, usually when their candidate experienced a:

a) Crisis

b) Transition through various stages

The above text was based on the following research:

Boud, D., & Costley, C. (2007). From project supervision to advising: New conceptions of the practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 119-130.

Cullen, D., Pearson, M., Saha, L.J., Spear, R.H. (1994) Establishing effective PhD Supervision. Canberra: AGPS, p. 74.

Denholm C. & Evans T. (Eds.), Supervising Doctorates Downunder (pp. 20-27). Melbourne: ACER

Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education and Policy Management 27(3): 311-325.

Grant, B. (2000). Pedagogical issues in research education. In M. Kiley & G. Mullins (Eds.), Quality in postgraduate research: Making ends meet (pp. 31-34).

Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B. (2000). The PhD and the autonomous self: gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, Volume: 25(2), 135-147.

Kiley, M. (2005) Framework for research supervision support and development at the Australian National University.

Sinclair, M. (2004). The pedagogy of 'good' PhD supervision: A national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision. Canberra: Department of Education Science and Training.

Ideas and tools

Exploring different ways of supervising.

Getting the balance right: Framework for looking at how you related with your students

ANU information

A framework for reviewing how to relate to your students, is based on interviews with experienced supervisors at the ANU.

The analysis revealed a model of the supervisory process which was common to all disciplines. The following are the basic elements of that model:

• Negotiating/guiding the move from dependence to independence. This involves different degrees of direction at various stages. For instance, it can become very directional in the final stage to force a student to complete, or if a student is floundering and losing confidence the supervisor may break the task down for them, and there is often an effort to get them to write up their research to full advantage. In this way, the student's move to independence is coupled with a bi-model pattern of time allocation from the supervisor.
• Varying the supervisory approach to suit the individual student's needs and personality, disciplinary differences and so on, even though some interviewees expressed a preference for a particular approach and preferred students who suited that approach. In one such instance a supervisor preferred students who did not want timetables, lots of regular contact, so these students were identified as 'better' students.
• Recognising the importance of formulating a problem/question, because this process ensures focus and engagement. The tension comes from providing enough direction to stop students going down paths which are non-productive (which is a problematic judgment in itself), without taking over. In other words the student has to 'own' their thesis. There was a suggestion that where a student completed a thesis but did not 'own it', the supervisor would be disappointed with that as an outcome.

 

For College-specific information:

College of Engineering & Computer Science

College of Law

College of Arts and Social Sciences

College of Asia & the Pacific

College of Business & Economics

College of Medicine and Health Sciences

Alternatively, contact the College Associate Dean (HDR) for more general college information.